Thank You

Error.

"The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts," wrote George Orwell in his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language." Sixty-seven years later, the author of the dystopian novel 1984 might have targeted the Orwellian use of the word "austerity" to characterize the recent trend in spending by government.

According to the dictionary, "austerity" means "self-denial" and "asceticism." So when the term is applied to spending, we naturally assume it means substantial cut-backs. But according to the Newspeak of Keynesian economists, a budget can be austere without any cutbacks to speak of, so long as it's the government's budget.

Bentley University economics professor and blogger Scott Sumner goes even further. "In the world of Keynesian economics," he recently declared, "spending can soar much higher, and they'd still insist that austerity is occurring. If the Keynesians are to be believed, we have savage cuts in government spending in America, despite data showing spending levels much higher than before the recession."

The chart on this page, tracking inflation-adjusted federal outlays generated by the White House's own Office of Management and Budget, confirms Sumner's point. We might call it "austerity" if constant-dollar outlays were headed back to the level of fiscal years 2006 and '07, just before the onset of the Great Recession. But even then, it would be a stretch. Real spending in '06 and '07 was at a peak up to that point: As a share of nominal gross domestic product, spending ran 19.9%, up from a 10-year average through 2005 of 19.2%.

Yet the trend has been anything but austere. After the surge in spending through 2009, real outlays have been on a plateau, with the OMB's projection for 2014 running more than 20% above the level of '06 and '07. At more than $3 trillion, real spending in 2014 is projected to run 2.5% below the '09 peak, with nominal spending running 7.3% higher. To call that austere would be like calling it ascetic when you manage a 2.5% decline in a daily calorie intake of 3,500.

ATTEMPTS TO RATIONALIZE away the hard facts about government spending have been the stuff of comedy. For example, New York Times columnist and blogger Paul Krugman has complained that "some people who should know better are conceding the point that maybe there haven't been big spending cuts. Yes, there have."

How so? According to Krugman, "you can't just look at spending levels to ask what is happening to spending programs. Here in the United States, spending on unemployment insurance and food stamps has risen sharply, not because the welfare state has expanded, but because a lot more people are unemployed and poor…. Also, some spending represents banking bailouts, not exactly what people have in mind when they talk about big government."

That we shouldn't "just look at spending levels to ask what is happening to spending programs" sounds like an economist's version of the late comedian Richard Pryor's famous line, "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?" And in fact, many of us often do have banking bailouts in mind when we complain about the crony capitalism that fuels big government's penchant for bailing out the well-connected.

But the best satirical response to Krugman has come from Hoover Institute fellow and EconTalk podcast-host Russell Roberts. "I get it," Roberts sarcastically conceded. "An increase in spending that doesn't reflect a desire for bigger government…that's not a spending increase…. And when Krugman was touting a two trillion stimulus package…who knew that government spending only stimulates when it springs from a desire for bigger government?"

As Roberts implies, the slovenly language is really all about the Keynesian claim that spending must continue to outstrip revenues by a wide margin to stimulate economic growth. Hence economist Sumner's point that the Keynesians might call it austere even if spending soared. And if there really were anything like austerity, they'd probably call it a fiscal famine.

It's not just semantics. As Orwell wrote, the "fight against bad English is not frivolous…if one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly."